Public opinion has always held teachers in high regard. Teaching is a noble profession. All of us have had good teachers and bad teachers just as there have always been good and bad actors in every industry.

It seems reasonable for teachers to take a pay cut when recessions hit, revenues are down and government needs to tighten its belt on all services. It is also reasonable that teachers receive a raise when the economy is growing, revenues are up and as a way to acknowledge their sacrifices as teachers during those tough economic times.

Thursday will be the first teacher strike in Arizona history. Who would think of encouraging teachers to walk out during the last few weeks of school? Who are the activists leading the teacher labor union?

As we have come out of the recession and revenues have increased we have put that money into education. We Republican Legislators support Teachers raises and that will be reflected in our budget.

The problem is that Left’s propaganda machine supported by the mainstream media, encouraged by school administrators, has given this false impression that we are somehow hostile to education when that is totally not the truth. Also, we do not micromanage the dollars they are given to local school boards and they create their own budget. Teachers do not work for the Legislators they work for local school districts and charters who determine their salary.

The Legislators only have the money the economy creates. We can’t print money. What we are being pressured to do is raise taxes on everyone. This is not necessary; our revenues are increasing and as they do so we put that money into education. Look at the information below.

The walkout is not necessary but only counterproductive.

2018

Even before state budget has been finalized, legislators have committed $667 million in yearly education funding

This is the result of a bill that continues an additional .06 cent tax

Prop 301 ends in 2021, and this bill will keep that money flowing to education

In addition, the bill also shifts $64 million from a debt service program to another fund dedicated to teacher pay

2017

Arizona public schools received more than $350 million in additional dollars for Fiscal 2018

The budget included nearly $80 million for inflationary increases

$84 million was added for enrollment growth

$21 million in new money went to special needs and charter schools

Teachers saw a 2% pay raise over 2018 and 2019, totaling $68 million

That money committed for 2019 will obviously be greatly increased in our new budget for this year

The best performing schools were rewarded with more than $37 million in ongoing formula funding

Early literacy programs received $8 million in 2018 and $12 million more in 2019

Legislature committed an additional $17 million for school repairs

Nearly $63 million was devoted to new school construction projects

An additional $38 million was set aside for 2019 new construction

2016

Proposition 123 was approved by legislators and sent to the voters

It injected $3.5 billion over ten years into the K-12 education system

In addition to the massive infusion of new dollars, the Legislature added more than $200 million in additional dollars

The budget included $132 million in new formula funding

An additional $31 million went to schools adjusting to current-year funding

An additional $30 million was appropriated to the School Facilities Board

$6.5 million went to the phase-out of the multi-site charter school weight

$1.2 million was dedicated to the phase-out of district-sponsored charter schools

(Phoenix, AZ) As a follow up to our poll released this past Tuesday, April 17th, and with a possible teacher strike beginning tomorrow, it is clear that Arizona voters are still supportive of the plan put forward by Governor Ducey. These same voters have also largely heard of and are positive towards the Red for Ed campaign.

Data Orbital commissioned this poll beginning Wednesday, April 18th and ending on Saturday, April 21st, as voters have been learning more details around the Governor’s plan to increase teacher pay by 20%. Our live caller poll found that a vast majority of Arizona voters continue to approve of the Governor’s plan. In addition, almost 50% of voters surveyed also have a positive opinion of the Red for Ed campaign.

The support for the plan continues to be consistent along party lines. Democrats are still most likely to favor the Governor’s plan, coming in at nearly 75%.

The poll found virtually no difference between males and females in their approval of Governor Ducey’s plan.

Support is also fairly consistent across age demographics with the highest support coming from those between 18 and 34 years of age.

Support is highest among those who have voted in at least 3 out of the last 4 general elections and lowest among those who have no previous history of voting in general elections (they made up only 3% of the sample).

As mentioned above, the Red for Ed movement is fairly well known with nearly 60% of voters familiar with it and only 29% certain they hadn’t heard of it.

It is not surprising that Democrats are more likely to have had positive exposure to the Red for Ed movement while Republicans have the highest negative sentiment towards it. As was mentioned above, most samples were collected prior to Red for Ed announcing their strike.

Women are also more likely to have a positive opinion while men are more likely to be negative in their opinion.

There also is a clear age correlation towards the overall exposure to Red for Ed. Older voters who don’t have children in K-12 are much more likely to be unfamiliar with it while younger voters with school age children have a higher positive exposure.

Demographics

George Khalaf, President of Data Orbital, issued the following statement: “It has been nearly a week and a half since the Governor announced his teacher pay raise plan and support has largely held steady with likely voters. These same voters tend to have positive views of Red for Ed, with support predominantly along partisan lines.”

###

This poll of 700 likely general election voters was conducted through a live survey that collected 50% of the results from land lines and 50% from cell phones. It has a margin of error at plus or minus 3.64%, with a 95% confidence interval. Respondents were weighted on a number of different demographic figures based off historical general election turnout in Arizona. The poll was conducted over four days from April 18th-21st. Toplines and demographic data can be found here and cross tabs here. To receive regular blog updates, subscribe here.

Ken Bennett recently announced he will seek the Republican nomination for Governor of Arizona in 2018.

Besides the fact that Ken Bennett is a bland and boring man who took 4th place in a run for Governor in 2014, he really isn’t a conservative.

Bennett was the Senate President during Governor Janet Napolitano’s reign. He was known to either be rolled by his own Senate members in support of Napolitano’s bloated budgets or to cave-in directly to Napolitano’s pressure. The Bennett/Napolitano budgets put Arizona in a world of financial hurt when the recession hit in 2008-2009.

But Napolitano bailed on her Governor’s post in order to head up Obama’s Department of Homeland Security. Secretary of State Jan Brewer succeeded Napolitano as Governor and Bennett was appointed to Secretary of State where he served the remaining term and was re-elected to the post in 2010. Four years later, he pursued the Republican nomination for Governor.

In the past few years since leaving office, Bennett has unsuccessfully run for Governor (2014) and placed fourth in a congressional race (2016) in a district in which he did not live.

After he lost the congressional primary, he publicly sought a government job from Governor Ducey and quietly, a position with Arizona House Speaker JD Mesnard.

Finding himself unemployed and a twice losing candidate, Bennett must now believe that a run for Governor may return him to political relevancy. Conservatives should be wary of Bennett. His record is not one he will easily be able to defend in a Republican Primary election.

West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Arizona have all been mired in a teacher pay debate, but one question is rarely asked or answered: Who is really responsible for teacher pay?

In states across the country, the clamoring for increased pay has been well-coordinated, and the demands are costly. Teachers in West Virginia left their classroom posts for nine days, and teachers in Oklahoma rounded out their first week out of the classroom. Teachers in West Virginia returned to their classrooms after receiving a 5 percent pay increase and teachers in Oklahoma still walked out of their classrooms after receiving an average increase in pay of $6,100, demanding that it be $10,000. In Arizona, this has been dubbed the #RedforED movement. Teachers in one school district shut down nine schools in a coordinated “sickout,” and more are purportedly planned to come. Arizona Educators United and the Arizona Education Association have outlined demands in order not to abandon their classrooms, which was agreed to under their contract. Among these demands include a 20 percent teacher pay raise, which could cost Arizona taxpayers approximately $680 million in the first year alone, not including the annual inflation adjustment. Their total funding demands, according to some estimates, reach into the $5 billion figure.

The debate over teacher pay reached new heights in Arizona when the Legislature passed a 2.12 percent teacher pay increase over two years on top of all of the other funding put into schools in 2017. This pay raise was outside the norm and is not how schools are funded in Arizona. It created cumbersome language to ensure that the dollars went to the intended recipient. Not only was this just bad policy because the state doesn’t fund teachers (it funds students), but also because it reinforced this idea that state lawmakers dictate what teachers’ salaries are.

What is far too often left out of the conversation are locally elected school district governing boards. These independently elected governing boards wield considerable power in their positions by creating policies, crafting school district budgets and setting teacher pay. Collectively, these school district governing boards allocated over $8.7 billion during the 2017 school year. Because of this local management of dollars, the Classroom Spending Report produced by the Auditor General becomes increasingly informative. The Auditor General puts school districts into operational efficiency peer groups by the size, type, and geographic location of school districts.

According to the 2017 report, Tempe Elementary School District (TESD) and Alhambra Elementary School District (AESD) were in the same operational peer group. Both served a similar number of students, and they are elementary districts in urban areas. However, when you look at teacher pay and revenues generated per student, it becomes clear how local decisions can have a huge impact on teacher pay. TESD received, on average, 25 percent more per pupil than AESD but paid its teachers almost 30 percent less, on average.

TESD

AESD

Students

11,049

12,524

Schools

21

14

Per Pupil

$11,512

$8,562

Teacher Ratio

15.1

20.6

Avg. Years

9.3

10.4

Teacher Pay

$40,899

$58,362

This isn’t the only example. Paradise Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) has been the subject of much media attention. In fact, one of the teachers within the school district posted her pay stub on social media. Her annual salary: $35,490. How could a teacher with nearly 10 years of experience and a school district that receives $10,501 per pupil be paid so little? It becomes even harder to comprehend when compared to Gilbert Unified School District (GUSD). Again, the Auditor General put these two school districts in the same operational peer group. GUSD received 16.9 percent less per pupil than PVUSD, but it was able to pay its teachers 5.5 percent more.

PVUSD

GUSD

Students

30,741

33,808

Schools

44

40

Per Pupil

$10,501

$8,720

Teacher Ratio

17.4

17.8

Avg. Years

12.7

11.9

Teacher Pay

$48,299

$51,125

And just to make the point abundantly clear, Balsz Elementary School District (Balsz) and Tolleson Elementary School District (Tolleson) show a similar trend. Tolleson receives 24.5 percent less than Balsz per pupil, but it is able to pay its teachers, on average, 13 percent more.

Balsz

Tolleson

Students

2,315

2,980

Schools

5

4

Per Pupil

$11,998

$9,049

Teacher Ratio

17.7

19.6

Avg. Years

8.9

9.6

Teacher Pay

$44,954

$51,705

If Arizona teachers and the public have a gripe with elected officials, the elected officials they should be targeting with this anger need to be their locally elected school district governing boards. The comparisons make it clear: It’s about how those dollars are spent. When a school district governing board prioritizes teacher pay, teacher pay is higher. If the Legislature were to meet the multi-billion dollar demands of #RedforED, there is no guarantee that those dollars would get where they were intended to go. Instead, these teachers and the public should be attending their local school district governing board meetings, examining their budgets, and holding them accountable.

Last October, Governor Doug Ducey appointed Justin Olson to the Arizona Corporation Commission in confidence that he would serve with ethics and integrity.

Since his appointment, Olson has enacted rate reductions that have lowered our electric bills. He has a long history in Arizona and really cares about serving ratepayers. He’s passionate about tax policy and is already bringing the kind of tax savings home to us.

Justin Olson is able to do this because he brings experience and expertise that the commission has never had before. He earned an MBA from ASU and understands business and finance. Olson also served in the Arizona Legislature where he worked to balance the budget without increasing debt, using gimmicks or raising our taxes.

Justin Olson is a true conservative who is looking out for Arizonans. After viewing this video you will see why he is the real deal and is acting in our best interests. Olson represents us and is sincerely looking out for Arizona ratepayers.

If you’d like to learn more about Commissioner Olson, check out his website at votejustinolson.com

When it comes to education basics, the seas are not just getting choppy, they’ve been choppy and seem to be getting worse. One has to wonder, after all these years of research, student data, and models of reform from all 50 states to compare to, what is really working? Have we even addressed our most basic needs?

Have we figured out this “parent choice” thing yet?

ABEC is proud to not only represent business, community and education voices, but also traditional public as well as public charter schools. We realize and support, a system of parent choice that preserves opportunities for school children of every age. Indeed, many education reforms begin with “choice.” But we must also remember that the choice by design or default of the vast majority of Arizona parents remains the traditional public school. Quite simply, Arizona families both want and expect their neighborhood schools to be both excellent choices and safe neighborhood assets. There is no rocket science engaged in this deduction. You can arrive at this conclusion not only by what school parents most often choose for their children to attend but how they buy and sell their families most precious asset, their homes.

But today, education in Arizona suffers for at least three very basic reasons.

Dick Foreman

First, the choice parents make should be based on opportunity, not failure. Some policymakers believe that the best accountability for a failing public school is to close it or abandon it. But just on the taxpayer side of things alone, stranding their assets based on the choice of a few parents is a poor calculation. In fact, it permits a catastrophic result for both children and the property values of the entire community. Making matters worse, state policies that enable increasing disparities in state education funding formulas coupled with the increased erosion of public funds through targeted tax credits is a strategy for destabilization, not student achievement or respect for choice.

Making matters worse, responsibility is dodged. When parental concerns for quality are raised, a “buyer beware” approach to selecting schools is suggested. At the accountability zenith of this policy is a traditional public or charter school whose doors are shuttered. We should never accept the failure of a public school, and we should never celebrate this heart-breaking news as an accountability. After all, the reasons for this failure were not molecularly connected to the brick and mortar!

Secondly, we know what best enables student achievement. Simply put, it is the teacher that matters. It has always been the teacher. And it will likely always be the teacher. Here’s how Kata Mihaly, economist for the Rand Corporation who specializes in using econometric modeling to assess educational achievement, puts it:

“When it comes to student performance on reading and math tests, a teacher is estimated to have two to three times the impact of any other school factor, including services, facilities, and even leadership.”

Getting bogged down in school leadership models, lawsuits over capital facilities, competition or engaged but selective parent choice as the drivers of achievement will not address Arizona student needs. It will, at best, address some student needs. And that’s not good enough for 1.1 million Arizona school children. And it is not good enough for taxpayers.

What is good enough?

Simply stated, it’s keeping a qualified teacher in position for as long a period of time as is possible. The teacher and their skills remain the single greatest barometer of student achievement that can be measured.

Third, the single greatest predictor of student success remains demographics. If a student lives in poverty, their lack of achievement is indeed predictable and unacceptable. But can this be addressed by policy? Of course, it can. In fact, 43 states have added a “poverty weight” to their school funding formulas to do just that, including Arizona. But unfortunately, Arizona has very limited application in this respect (largely, a limited weight for 3rd Grade reading).

Here is an interesting data point on this failure from Diane Ravitch’s Blog of March 1, 2018:*Students in the South and Southwest face a “double disadvantage” because their states provide low funding with no boost in funding for high poverty districts. States with flat or regressive funding include … Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico in the Southwest.

*Only a few states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Wyoming, provide high levels of school funding and distribute more funding to their high poverty districts. Notably, New Jersey and Massachusetts are the top performing states on student outcomes.”

Perhaps there is wisdom in getting back to the basics.

How about we work with policymakers to lay down the swords of philosophical agendas and work together to positively address the real basics? First, let’s respect all public education choices and resist creating winners and losers. Parent involvement and choice should always be encouraged but not confused as a necessary antecedent to student achievement overall. Secondly, let’s encourage maintaining a highly trained, long-term teaching workforce in Arizona’s classrooms. And thirdly, let’s recognize poverty as the single greatest indicator of student achievement and do something about it in the school funding formula.

NOTE: Dick Foreman is president & CEO of ABEC. To contact, please send him an e-mail. ABOUT ABEC

The Arizona Business and Education Coalition (ABEC) is the coalition of Arizona business and education leaders committed to helping create public education policy essential to a vibrant, growing Arizona economy. The coalition is a 501(c)(3), non-partisan, statewide membership organization focused on K-12 public education while recognizing the importance of early childhood development, post-secondary education and workforce development.

Flagstaff, AZ – Arizona 1st District Congressional candidate, Wendy Rogers, a conservative entrepreneur and retired Air Force pilot, who supported Donald Trump in the primaries, visited the border wall prototypes near the Mexican border this weekend just days ahead of President Trump’s expected visit. After inspecting the wall prototypes, Wendy Rogers gave a speech detailing her determination to build the wall, end chain migration, and fight for other key conservative immigration initiatives when elected.

President Trump is expected to visit the wall prototypes this week, where he is expected to highlight his immigration initiatives, mainly to fund and build the wall.

A video of the speech Wendy Rogers gave can be found on Rogers’ Facebook page.

I’m speaking to you from the prototypes of President Trump’s border wall, which he is fighting hard to get funded and built. Our nation’s sovereignty, security, and the rule of law should be top priority for any elected official in Washington DC.

Unfortunately, however, they are not. We don’t enforce our laws. We allow immigrants to enter our nation illegally. We allow drugs, crime, and gang activity to run rampant, especially on our southern border.

We lose billions due to fraud, waste, and abuse stemming from our immigration programs and subsidies. Wages of American workers continually decline because of suppressed wages from illegal immigration.

I served as an American Air Force officer. I know what security looks like. What we have now is a complete and utter mess. We are losing our sovereignty and our respect for the rule of law.

It’s time to do something about it.

You see . . . we still have politicians who give double-talk . . . they talk about fences instead of the wall.They talk about amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in order to give us even a fraction of the wall. No! This is not what we the people voted for!

We have serious problems. Our nation will not last unless we fix this, and fix it now. No more double-talk.

Build the wall. No amnesty – immigrants must enter legally or not at all. Crackdown on sanctuary cities. Arrest elected officials who undermine our sovereignty. End chain migration, which is a corrosive policy that endangers innocent Americans. It should’ve have ended long ago.

End the visa lottery, so we don’t have to worry about admitting terrorists. Keep the travel ban in place until countries can demonstrate they are civilized on the world stage. End foreign aid to countries who deplore us. Put E-verify in place to double-check workers who enter, so we can be sure they’re legitimate. Crackdown on MS-13. Enforce our laws! We veterans understand what security looks like. We know you don’t leave a section of your perimeter unprotected. We know there must be solid access control. And we know you need to remove bad actors. This is common sense!

America First. Arizona First. It is time to get this done. Col. Wendy Rogers – out.”

Wendy Rogers is a retired Air Force officer who attained the rank of Lt. Col., became one of the U.S. military’s first female pilots, is an entrepreneur and homeschool mom.

Early Monday morning, readers of Frosty Taylor’s Fake News were treated to a yet another truth-deprived rant. Fresh off of her attacks on hard-working PCs and foreign-born Republicans, Frosty has created yet another fake enemy at which to direct her ire: PCs who vote by proxy at Republican statutory meetings.

That’s right…at a time when leftwing billionaire Tom Steyer is pouring tens of millions of dollars into our state, when we are less than two months from a crucial special election in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, and when Washington liberals are already plotting to impeach our President, Frosty continues to insist on finding insignificant issues that are only meant to divide Republicans. In the case of proxy voting, the legislation being championed by Frosty is a solution without a problem.

It would be difficult to make a point-by-point refutation of the Fake News contained in Frosty’s rant; on the whole, the entire piece is flawed by half-truths, personal attacks, and outright lies. But there are a few areas that must be addressed:

Frosty claims that some PCs carry “40 or 50 proxies” to state and LD meetings. This is not just a lie, it is demonstrably false according to Frosty’s own analysis. Last year, Frosty provided a table of how many proxies were carried in each legislative district, so she of all peoples should know how many proxies could have been carried by one individual PC. Given the rules governing proxies, it is literally impossible for any one PC to carry 40 proxies, let alone 50. Frosty surely knows this, yet perpetuates this lie, anyway. The definition of Fake News.

Next, Frosty may find proxies objectionable, but she certainly isn’t immune to using them herself, nor are her allies. While she was not elected to the State Committee, she did attend a special meeting to replace Steve Montenegro in LD 13. She carried 7 proxies. Archie Dickinson, the author of the anti-proxy resolution, carried 7 at the Mandatory Meeting. Timothy Schwartz, who testified in favor of the legislation and “begged” the legislature to intervene, carried 5. Marianne Ferrari, the author of the failed “Recall Lines” movement, did not attend the Mandatory Meeting, but sent in a proxy to represent her. So much hypocrisy, but again not surprising.

Frosty compares voting by proxy to ballot harvesting, the practice of collecting unlimited ballots from voters. This is a completely false analogy and even a woman as woefully uninformed as Frosty should know this. Ballot harvesting was objectionable because of the potential for abuse and election fraud. Not to mention the fact that Arizona voters have 4 full weeks in which they may cast their ballots. County and State meetings, by contrast, are on Saturdays; practicing Jewish Republicans, families with children, as well as others, may find it impossible to attend a Saturday meeting. Given her past attacks of Mormon and foreign-born Republicans, perhaps it is no surprise that Frosty would object to Jews having a voice within our Party.

And finally, Frosty goes on to attack the current AZGOP party leadership, an ongoing pattern of hers after her multiple failed attempts to defeat popular chairman Jonathan Lines. Frosty strongly backed Lines’ opponent, Jim O’Connor, in 2017. She was a fierce proponent of the ill-fated recall effort last summer. And earlier this year, she gave voice to a quixotic and unsuccessful attempt to remove Chairman Lines at the AZGOP Mandatory Meeting. Her lies include accusations of “secrecy…financial questions…controlled elections.” All of these attacks are, of course, baseless and amount to nothing more than so many sour grapes. Frosty lost, and now she’s throwing a fit that she can’t change the outcome of the election. Get over it.

As Frosty’s readership continues to dwindle, Republicans are rallying behind our strong GOP candidates and our successful State Party. True conservatives are standing strong for lower taxes, and fighting back against the far left who are trying to buy our state. As we enter the election season, we once again must tune out the lies of the Fake News media…and that continues to include Fake News Frosty Taylor.

Pursuant to the Arizona State Constitution, the City of Tempe (City) seeks voter approval to permanently adjust the expenditure base of the City as determined by the Economic Estimates Commission. If approved by the voters, the City’s base expenditure limitation will be increased by $30,000,000, adjusted each future year for population and inflation growth since 1979-80.

With voter approval, in 2018-19, the City’s expenditure limitation will increase by $156,591,369, from $342,305,491 to $498,896,860. The City will utilize the additional expenditure authority for any local budgetary purposes including public safety (police and fire/medical rescue) expenditures; community services, parks and youth programs; community development projects; transit operations and maintenance; and pay-as-you-go capital
financing.

If approved, the additional authorized expenditures will be funded from state and local sources.”
Just one more example of the progressive socialist Tempe City Council misleading us so they can continue to increase our outrageous taxes and fees!

About the bill:

Proposition 404: Permanent base expenditure adjustment

A strong economy has grown Tempe’s revenues over the last several years, but a state-imposed ceiling puts a cap on the amount municipalities can spend on their services, facilities and amenities. For the third time since the Arizona Legislature put the ceiling in place in 1980, Tempe must ask voters to raise the limit so the city can spend the revenue it brings in. Base adjustments do not raise sales or property tax rates. All annual expenditures still go through a public process and City Council approval.

The General/Special Election is March 13. This is the first Tempe election that will be Ballot by Mail, which means that every registered voter will get a ballot in the mail. Ballots will be mailed Feb. 14. Voters who need a replacement ballot can request one through the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office until March 5; after March 5, replacement ballots are available at either of the two ballot centers in Tempe or at the Recorder’s Office. Voters can also drop off their voted ballots or vote at a ballot center. Ballots must be received by the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office or dropped off at a ballot center by 7 p.m. March 13. Maricopa County recommends that ballots be placed in the mail on or before March 7. Additional information is at http://www.tempe.gov/city- hall/city-clerk-s-office/ election-information/ballot- by-mail-elections

Any information about the election, from voter registration to finding the results, can be found at http://www.tempe.gov/city- hall/city-clerk-s-office/ election-information or by calling 480-350-4311.

About Sonoran Alliance

Arizona's most popular and prominent political blog covering political news and events, commentary and information with a blatantly conservative worldview. We are an alliance of writers, activists, consultants and government insiders.